3Re:pubHt of tbe flbili:ppinez

$upre111e Qtourt
Jlllcmt[n

FIRST DIVISION

P02 BERNARDINO CRUZ y G.R. No. 216642

BASCO,
Petitioner, Present:

PERALTA, CJ., Chairperson,

CAGUIOA,
- versus - J. REYES, JR.,
LAZARO-JAVIER, and
LOPEZ,JJ

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent. SEP 08
x------------------------------------------------- -

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

This is an appeal 1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the
Decision2 dated June 23, 2014 and Resolution3 dated January 21, 2015 of the
Court of Appeals, Special Fourth Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR No. 35225,
which affirmed in toto the Decision4 dated July 12, 2012 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 5 (RTC) in Criminal Cases Nos. 08-263728 and 08-
263729, finding petitioner PO2 Bernardino Cruz y Basco (Cruz) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
frustrated homicide.

Facts of the Case

Cruz was charged with homicide under the following Information:

1
Rollo, pp. 9-22.
2
Id. at 23-35. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concmTed in by Associate Justices
Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang.
Id. at 36-37.
4
Id. at 38-48.
 Decision 2 G.R. No. 216642

xxxx

That on or about September 9, 2008, in the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence
upon the person of one GERWIN TORRALBA Y FERNANDEZ, 9 years
old, a minor, by then and there firing and hitting the latter's head with a
gun, thereby inflicting upon the said GERWIN TORRALBA Y
FERNANDEZ mortal gunshot wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death thereafter.

Contrary to law. 5

He was also charged with frustrated homicide under the following

Information:

xxxx

That on or about September 9, 2008, in the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence
upon the person of one ARCHIBALD BERNARDO Y DAVID, by then
and there firing and hitting the latter on the right wrist and left shoulder
with a gun, thereby inflicting upon the said ARCHIBALD BERNARDO
Y DAVID physical injuries which were necessarily fatal and mortal thus
performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime
of homicide as a consequence, but which nevertheless did not produce it
by reason or causes independent of the will of the said ARCHIBALD
BERNARDO Y DAVID, which prevented his death.

Contrary to law. 6

When Cruz was arraigned on November 16, 2009, he pleaded not guilty
to both charges. 7 Thereafter, trial ensued. 8

Version of the Prosecution

On September 9, 2008, private complainant Archibald Bernardo y

David (Bernardo) was manning his liquified petroleum gas (LPG) business
when he received a call from a customer complaining that the LPG gas tank
delivered earlier was leaking. 9 Bernardo decided to attend to it personally and,
using his own motorcycle, proceeded to the customer. 10

While cruising along Paulino Street and before reaching the

intersection of Nepa and Alfonso Streets, Bernardo chanced upon Cruz who

5
Records, p. 2. Emphasis omitted.
6
Id. at 43.
7
Rollo, p. 24.
8
Id. at 26.
9
· Id.
10
Id. at 26-27.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 216642

was also on a motorcycle in front of Balut Bakery. 11 Earlier, one Petronillo

Herero (Herero) noticed that Cruz traversing Paulino Street slowly while
looking from_ side to side as if in search of someone. 12

Bernardo overtook Cruz but the latter tried to flag him down. 13 When
Bernardo looked back and their eyes met, Cruz placed his right hand on the
gun tucked in his waist and then, in a challenging voice, shouted "Ano?" at
Bernardo. 14 Bernardo responded with "Ano rin." 15 Immediately, Cruz drew
his gun from his waist and fired successive shots at Bernardo, who sped off
with his motorcycle to flee. 16

Before reaching the comer ofBalasan Street, Bernardo stopped and got
off his motorcycle. 17 By then, he was already hit twice at the back of his left
arm. 18 He only realized this when he saw blood dripping from his arm. 19 He
also lost grip in his left ann, which forced him to stop the motorcycle and
leave it behind. 20 Bernardo tried to draw and cock his gun to retaliate but was
unable to do so due to the injuries that he sustained. 21 Meanwhile, Cruz
continued firing his gun at Bernardo until he hit the latter again on his right
wrist. 22

In the meantime, Gerwin F. Torralba (Torralba) was flying a kite in the

area at that time. 23 Torralba fell to the ground upon being hit by one of the
bullets fired by Cruz. 24 Upon seeing Torralba sprawled on the ground, Cruz
stopped, left his motorcycle, and ran towards Nepa Street. 25

Meanwhile, Bernardo fled on foot and reached the Barangay Hall. 26 He

then hailed a pedicab and asked the driver to bring him and the wounded
Torralba to the hospital. 27 They were brought to Tondo Medical Center. 28
Bernardo survived due to prompt medical treatment. 29 Unfortunately,
Torralba, who was transferred to Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center,
expired upon arrival thereat. 30

11
Id.at27.
12 Id.
13
Id.
14 Id
15 Id.
16 Id.
17
Id.
is Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
2s Id.
26 Id.
21 Id.
2s Id.
29 Id.
30
Records, p. 425.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 216642

Version of the Defense

Cruz, a regular member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), was

then assigned at Police Station 1 (PS-1) of the Manila Police District, located
at Tonda, Manila City. 31

On September 9, 2008, Cruz was on a day shift duty (7:00 a.m. to 7:00
32
p.m. ). Using his own motorcycle, he conducted a roving patrol along Paulino
Street up to the vicinity of San Rafael Street, within the area and jurisdiction
of PS-1. 33 On his way back to PS-1, while traversing Paulino Street between
the comers of Nepa and Batasan Streets, Bernardo, who was also on a
motorcycle, suddenly overtook him, blocked his path and nearly collided with
his motorcyde. 34

Cruz then asked Bernardo, "Ano ba?" 35 It was then that he recognized
that the person who overtook him was Bernardo, son of a former. Barangay
Chairman who was defeated by his mother in the recent election. 36 Bernardo
shouted back, "Ano rin/" 37 At the same time, Bernardo drew his gun from his
waist and pointed it at Cruz, while also moving away slowly on board his
motorcycle. 38 Faced with imminent danger to his own life, Cruz, a policeman,
acted swiftly to prevent the aggression by drawing his service firearm and
firing at the arms of Bernardo. 39

Although wounded, Bernardo tried to load and cock his handgun. 40

Thus, Cruz had no other recourse but to fire at Bernardo again to repel the
imminent danger. 41

Cruz was about to approach Bernardo to bring him to the hospital but
hesitated when he saw several persons coming from the area where Bernardo
resides. 42 He was compelled to leave his motorcycle behind and leave the area
on foot. 43

Thereafter, Cruz surrendered to his superior and turned-over his service

firearms, and subsequently submitted himself for investigation. 44 It was only

31
Rollo, p. 28.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44
Id. at 28-29.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 216642

then that he learned that during the incident, Torralba, a child who was
playing, was accidentally hit and had died. 45

RTC Ruling

In a Decision dated July 12, 2012, the RTC found Cruz guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide with respect to the shooting of
Bernardo. On the other hand, with respect to the death of Torralba, the RTC
held that Cruz is only guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
because of the lack of criminal intent. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court rules as follows:

I. In Criminal Case No. 08-263728, accused PO2 BERNARDINO

CRUZ Y BASCO @ "BONG CRUZ" is GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide
defined and penalized under Art. 365 in relation to Art. 249 of the
Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY
of[arresto mayor], as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2)
MONTHS of [prision correccional], as maximum. In addition,
accused is ordered to pay the heirs of Gerwin Torralba y Fernandez
civil indemnity [ex-delicto] in the amount of P70,000.00, actual
damages in the amount of PS0,000.00, P24,000.00 for funeral and
burial expenses, and Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages and
compensatory damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs of suit.

2. In Criminal Case No. 08-263729, accused PO2 BERNARDINO

CRUZ Y BASCO @ "BONG CRUZ" is GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and
ONE (1) DAY as minimum to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
as maximum and to indemnify Archibald Bernardo y David the
amount of PS0,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral
damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and
to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. 46

CA Ruling

On June 23, 2014, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision which

affirmed in toto the RTC Decision. The CA upheld the sufficiency of the
evidence presented by the prosecution and rejected Cruz's version of the
events as lacking in credibility and for inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the defense's witnesses. However, the CA no longer discussed Cruz's
invocation of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty, and the

45
Id. at 29.
46
Id. at 47-48.
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 216642

mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and/or sufficient

provocation.

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the court a

quo in Criminal Case No. 08-263728 finding the accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide as well as in Criminal Case no. 08-263729 finding
the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
:frustrated homicide is AFFIRMED in toto. 47

Aggrieved, Cruz sought reconsideration of the above Decision but was

denied by the CA in a Resolution dated January 21, 2015.

Hence, this appeal.

Cruz argues that the justifying circumstances of self-defense and lawful

performance of duty should be appreciated in his favor. 48 Alternatively, he
maintains that his criminal liability should be mitigated given the sufficient
provocation on the part of Bernardo, and by his voluntary surrender. 49

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the justifying
and mitigating circumstances raised by Cruz are not supported by evidence on
record. 50 Additionally, the OSG argues, as it did before the CA, that with
respect to the death of Torralba, Cruz should be held guilty of homicide
instead of just reckless imprudence resulting in homicide because Torralba's
death was brought about by the same felonious act of shooting at Bernardo. 51

Issue

The parties submit the following issues for resolution of the Court:

1. Whether the CA committed a reversible error in ruling that Cruz

was not acting in self defense or fulfillment of duty at the time of the
shooting incident;

2. Whether the CA committed a reversible error in not appreciating

the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and voluntary
surrender in favor of Cruz; and

3. Whether the CA committed a reversible error when it upheld the

RTC ruling that, with respect to the death of Torralba, Cruz is guilty
only of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide instead of homicide.

47
Id. at 34.
48
Id. at 147 - 168.
49
Id. at 163-164.
50
Id. at 120.
51
Id. at B2-133.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 216642

The Court's Ruling

An appeal by the accused in criminal cases throws the entire case wide
open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though
unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision
based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. 52 The appeal
confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such
court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 53

After a judicious review of the records of the case at bar, the Court finds
that a modification of the assailed CA Decision is in order.

Cruz was not acting in self-defense or

fulfillment of duty

Cruz argues that he should not be held criminally liable for the death of
Torralba and the injuries sustained by Bernardo because he was acting in self-
defense and in the performance of his duty as a police officer. The Court finds
no merit in his position.

On the matter of self-defense, the Court concurs with the findings of

both the RTC and the CA that Cruz's act of shooting was not precipitated by
any unlawful aggression on the part of Bernardo. In self-defense, the accused
bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence
of the following elements: (l) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 54
Of these three elements, the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim is the most important. 55 The test for the presence of unlawful
aggression is whether aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or
personal safety of the person defending himself, and such peril must not be an
imagined or imaginary threat. 56 Accordingly, (a) there must be a physical or
material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least,
imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. 57

As found by the RTC and the CA, Cruz failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that it was Bernardo who first drew a gun. Thus, in the
absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Bernardo, the plea of self-
defense must necessarily fail.

There is also no merit in Cruz's claim that he was acting in the

fulfillment of his duties as a police officer at the time of the shooting incident.
52
Casilac v. People, G.R. No. 238436, February 17, 2020.
53 Id.
54
People v. Dulin, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015, 760 SCRA 413,425.
55 Id.
56 Peoplev. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606, November 23,2011, 661 SCRA 159, 167.
57
Id. at 168.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 216642

To successfully invoke this justifying circumstance, an accused must prove

that: (1) he acted in the performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or
offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or
lawful exercise of such duty. 58 It has already been established-by the
consistent factual findings of the RTC and CA, which gave more credence to
the facts as narrated by the prosecution-that Cruz's act of shooting Bernardo
was without any justifiable cause. Consequently, there is no basis to conclude
that Cruz's actions were committed in furtherance of his police duties.
Moreover, the fact that he reported for duty on the day of the incident, 59 does
not necessarily prove that he was, at that time, acting by reason of and in the
fulfillment of his duty as a police officer. Clearly, the justifying circumstance
of fulfillment of duty has no application in this case.

Having pleaded self-defense, Cruz essentially admitted to the felonious

act of shooting Bernardo and inflicting fatal injuries upon the latter. On this
score, the Court concurs with the findings of the RTC and CA that Cruz is
guilty of frustrated homicide.

The death of Torralba amounts to

homicide

Considering that the death of Torralba was caused by the same

felonious act of shooting at Bernardo, the OSG is correct when it argues that
Cruz should be held guilty of homicide as originally charged.

Torralba, an eight-year old boy, was at the wrong place and time during
the shooting incident. While Cruz did not intend to end the life of this child,
the latter's death is a crime of homicide in accordance with Article 4 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) and prevailing jurisprudence.

Under Article 4, criminal liability is incurred "by any person

committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended." Accordingly, the author of the felony shall be
criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof,
whether intended or not. For this provision to apply, it must be shown,
however, (a) that an intentional felony has been committed, and (b) that the
wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender. 60 The Court finds these
elements present in this case.

It has already been established that Cruz committed an intentional

felony when he fired multiple shots at Bernardo. The death of Torralba, who
was hit by one of those bullets intended for Bernardo, is a direct, natural, and

58
Mamangun v. People, G.R. No. 149152, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 44, 51.
59
Records, pp. 459-460.
60
People v. Iligan, G.R. No. 75369, November 26, 1990, 191 SCRA 643,651.
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 216642

logical consequence of said intentional felony. The death of TmTalba is an

example of aberratio ictus.

In People v. Adriano y Samson, 61 a case where one of the victims was

a mere by-stander hit by a stray bullet, the Court explained the principle of
aberratio ictus under Article 4 of the RPC, viz.:

We refer back to the settled facts of the case. Bulanan, who was
merely a bystander, was killed by a stray bullet. He was at the wrong place
at the wrong time.

Stray bullets, obviously, kill indiscriminately and often without

warning, precluding the unknowing victim from repelling the attack or
defending himself. At the outset, Adriano had no intention to kill Bulanan,
much less, employ any particular means of attack. Logically, Bulanan's
death was random and unintentional and the method used to kill her, as she
was killed by a stray a bullet, was, by no means, deliberate. Nonetheless,
Adriano is guilty of the death of Bulanan under Article 4 of the Revised
Penal Code, pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which imposes
criminal liability for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the
natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom. While it may not have
been Adriano's intention to shoot Bulanan, this fact will not exculpate him.
Bulanan's death caused by the bullet fired by Adriano was the natural and
direct consequence of Adriano's felonious deadly assault against ,Cabiedes.

xxxx

As we already held in People v. Herrera citing People v. Hilario,

"[t]he fact that accused killed a person other than their intended victim is of
no moment." Evidently, Adriano's original intent was to kill Cabiedes.
However, during the commission of the crime of murder, a stray bullet hit
and killed Bulanan. Adriano is responsible for the consequences of his act
of shooting Cabiedes. This is the import of Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code. As held in People v. Herrera citing People v. Ural:

Criminal liability is incurred by any person

committing a felony although the wrongful act be different
from that which is intended. One who commits an intentional
felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally or logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
intended or not. The rationale of the rule is found in the
doctrine, ["el que es causa de la causa es causa de! mal
causado"], or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused. 62

Moreover, a finding of dolo or malice on the part of Cruz is simply

incompatible with criminal negligence under Article 3 65 of the RPC which
defines reckless imprudence as that which "x xx consists in voluntary, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage

61
G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015, 763 SCRA 70.
62
Id. at 83-84. Citations omitted.
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 216642

results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person

performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and
other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. x x x" 63 Thus, it was
erroneous to characterize Torralba' s death as one resulting from reckless
imprudence.

Cruz is only entitled to the mitigating

circumstance of voluntary surrender

While Cruz is guilty of frustrated homicide and homicide, he is entitled

to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender under Article 13,
paragraph 7, of the RPC which requires "[t]hat the offender had voluntarily
surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents. x x x"

For this mitigating circumstance to be appreciated, the following

elements must be present: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2)
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent;
and 3) the surrender was voluntary. 64 All three elements are present in this
case. As shown by the records, Cruz surrendered his person and service
firearm to his superior immediately after the shooting incident.

Cruz declared in his Memorandum65 dated September 9, 2008

addressed to his station commander that:

After the incident the undersigned police officer immediately

surrendered to his superior as well as his service firearm and turned over
to the General Assignment Section (MPD-GAS) for investigation.xx x"66

It is also indicated in the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report67 dated

September 10, 2008 that Cruz was "Apprehended By: Voluntary Surrender."68
Likewise, it is stated in the Crime Report69 dated September 10, 2008 that
after the incident, Cruz "x x x fled the scene and surrender[ ed] himself to his
Station Commander P/SUPT. ROLANDO MIRANDA of [PS-1] [Manila
Police] District x x x." 70

The Booking Sheet and Arrest Report as well as the Crime Report were
admitted by and offered in evidence by the prosecution. 71 These pieces of
evidence clearly and convincingly establish the fact that Cruz had not been
actually arrested, but had instead immediately and voluntarily surrendered

63
Emphasis supplied.
64
De Verav. De Vera, G.R. No. 172832, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 506,515.
65
Records, p. 15.
66
Id. at 15.
67
Id. at 4.
6s Id.
69
Id.at9-14.
70
Id. at 12.
71
Id. at 279-435.
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 216642

himself and his service firearm to a person in authority. Thus, he is entitled to

the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

The same, however, cannot be said with respect to his claim of

sufficient provocation on the part of the Bernardo.

Under Article 13, paragraph 4, of the RPC, the criminal liability of the
accused shall be mitigated if "x x x sufficient provocation or threat on the part
of the offended party immediately preceded the act" of the accused. Sufficient
provocation refers to "any unjust or improper conduct or act of the victim
adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong, which is accordingly
proportionate in gravity." 72 In order to be mitigating, provocation on the part
of the victim must be sufficient and should immediately precede the act of the
offender. 73

Cruz argues that Bernardo's acts of suddenly overtaking him, blocking

his path and almost colliding with his motorcycle, as well as his acts of
shouting, drawing and aiming a gun at Cruz, amount to sufficient provocation.
The evidence on record, however, does not support this.

As mentioned earlier, Cruz failed to prove that it was Bernardo who

first drew a gun. Both the R TC and CA gave more credence to the consistent
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testified that Cruz drew his gun
and fired at Bernardo immediately after their short but heated exchange of
words, as corroborated by the medical observation with respect to the
trajectory of the bullet that hit Bemardo. 74

The evidence shows that it was Cruz who first drew and fired his gun.
While his firing was preceded by a short verbal altercation, this still does not
amount to sufficient provocation. The short exchange of words between
Bernardo and Cruz, though heated, is not adequate to elicit such grave reaction
as the firing of a gun. Thus, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation cannot be appreciated in favor of Cruz.

Penalties and Damages

Given the Court's findings that the death of Torralba amounts to

homicide, and that Cruz is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, the penalties imposed upon him shall be modified accordingly.

The penalty prescribed for homicide is reclusion perpetµa, 75 while the

penalty prescribed for frustrated homicide is prision mayor. 76 Applying the

72
Miranda v. People, G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019.
73 Id.
74
Supra notes 2 and 4.
75
Art. 249, REVISED PENAL CODE.
76
Art. 50, REVISED PENAL CODE.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 216642

Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the fact that Cruz is entitled to
one mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty is any period within the
range of the penalty that is one a degree lower than that prescribed by law, as
the minimum, and the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by law, as
the maximum. Accordingly, the Court imposes upon Cruz the penalty of: (a)
eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years and one
day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for his crime of homicide; and, (b)
two years, two months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum to
six yea~s and one day of prision mayor, as maximum, for his crime of
frustrated homicide.

The Court also deems it proper to modify the award of damages to

conform with prevailing jurisprudence. In People v. Jugueta, 77 the Court
provided guidelines with respect to the award of damages in criminal cases.

For Homicide, the court shall award civil indemnity ex delicto in the
amount of P50,000.00, and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. 78
The heirs of the victim are also entitled to burial or funeral expenses in the
amount of P50,000.00 in the absence of any documentary evidence showing
the amount actually spent. 79 In case of Frustrated Homicide, the victim is
entitled to civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P30,000.00, and moral
damages in the amount of P30,000.00. 80 In both cases, the award of actual
damages is also proper, but only in the amount supported by evidence. 81

Thus, in this case, the heirs of Torralba are entitled to P50,000.00 civil
indemnity ex delicto, P50,000.00 moral damages, P6,140.00 actual damages
for Torralba's last medical expenses, 82 and P50,000.00 as burial and funeral
expenses.

On the other hand, Bernardo is entitled to P30,000.00 civil indemnity

exdelicto, P30,000.00 moral damages, andP35,573.15 actual damages for his
medical expenses. 83

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby

PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated June 23, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals, Special Fourth Division, in CA-G.R. CR No. 35225, is hereby
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 08-263728, petitioner PO2 Bernardino

Cruz y Basco @ "Bong Cruz" is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised

77
G .R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
78
Id. at 380, 386.
79
Id. at }80-381, 388.
80
Id. at 387.
81
Id. at 367.
82
Rollo, pp. 420, 422 and 424.
83
Id. at 345-417.
p I I i

Decision 13 G.R. No. 216642

Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty

of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum to twelve (12) years and
one (1) day as maximum. In addition, Cruz is ORDERED TO PAY
the heirs of Gerwin Torralba y Fernandez PS0,000.00 civil indemnity
ex delicto, PS0,000.00 moral damages, P6,140.00 actual damages, and
PS0,000.00 as burial and funeral expenses; and

(2) In Criminal Case No. 08-263729, petitioner PO2 Bernardino

Cruz y Basco @ "Bong Cruz" is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Frustrated Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249, in
relation to Article 6, of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, two (2) months and
one (1) day as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day as maximum.
In addition, Cruz is ORDERED TO PAY Archibald Bernardo y David
P30,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto, P30,000.00 moral damages, and
P35,573.15 actual damages.

(3) Cruz is also ORDERED TO PAY interest at the rate of six

percent (6%) per annum on the civil indemnity, moral damages, actual
damages and funeral and burial expenses from the time of the finality
of this decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

stice
Chairperson
 - - - - ·--·-------·-----·- ---

Decision 14 G.R. No. 216642

d!.~
(7!!sociate Justice
AM ~~-JAVIER
~ssociate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

DIOSDADO, \ PERALTA
Chief J~tice